Why Icons Matter
Late in 2007, when I was in the final year of my education degree, I found myself discussing a joint project with a colleague of mine. We had partnered up for this assignment, and he liked to talk, so we talked. Eventually the conversation moved to religious matters. I think I knew that he was a Christian before this meeting, but I wasn't really aware of the denomination he belonged to. We talked about our Churches for a few minutes. It turns out he was Lutheran, and took his doctrine very seriously. He Then he uttered a sentence that absolutely dumbfounded me:
As the semester wore itself on, we got more and more acquainted. When we were given our school placements for the year, he voiced to me his predicament. He had been placed at a private Christian Mennonite high school out of town, which is exactly what he wanted. Well, the "Christian" part anyway. He was having difficulty with teaching in a school alongside people who did not practice infant baptism. After he told me this, I must confess I rolled my mental eyes at him. Come on, I thought, get over the doctrine issue. What a petty thing to have a problem with. Besides, you're not supposed to baptize infants - it's against the Bible.
Fast-forward ten and a half years. Now I can say:
But what exactly was the seventh ecumenical council? Why did my colleague have such a problem with it? What the heck is the big deal anyway? Can't we all just get along?
The seventh ecumenical council, held in Nicaea in 787, was about icons. Iconography had been a contentious issue for the last 150 years, and this was the council that officially ended the controversy once and for all and restored icons to their proper place as not just an important part of our faith, but an absolutely essential part of our faith.
"What? Icons... essential? Boy what a legalistic and idolatrous stance to take!" (said while rolling mental eyes at me)
Ah, icons... At one time I hated them. Now I find myself wanting as many of them as I can get. Anyway, enough of me, here's a brief history of the seventh ecumenical council.
In the decades leading up to the year 726, there had been a small group of Christians that decided icons were idolatrous and violated the second commandment, that there be no graven images made. The group, known as iconoclasts were small in number, but in 726, then Emperor Leo III joined the attack on icons. The empire was thoroughly Christian at this point and there were many churches, most of which had icons displayed. There is some uncertainty as to why Leo joined this attack. Some suggest it was borne out of the rise of Muslim invasions - In an effort to figure out why he kept getting defeated, Leo began to think that God was angry with Christianity for including icons in worship, whereas the Muslims abhorred any image whatsoever. Regardless of the reason, he began to spread the idea that icons were abhorrent to God which gave strength to the iconoclast position. With the support of the emperor, the iconoclasts began to get rid of all the icons they could, calling them idolatrous, and smashed quite a few of them. It was during this time that entire churches were being built with no icons whatsoever - something that seems alien when compared with today's Orthodox churches. The attack went on for over 50 years until 780 when icons were restored to their proper place. And the council was convened in 787 to make the restoration of icons official.
The battle for icons was long. Even after the council, there was an iconoclast resurgence lasting nearly 30 years, finally ending in 843. There was even a "council" against icons before the 787, but that council was summarily declared invalid by the seventh council. The day in 843 when Empress Theodora finally put an end to the controversy is commemorated by Orthodox everywhere on the first Sunday of Lent, called the Sunday of Orthodoxy.
But why was it so necessary that icons be restored? Why was the rejection of icons as idols and the accusation that they violated the second commandment such a tragedy?
All previous six ecumenical councils had been convened to discuss the matter of Christ's nature and incarnation. Other things were discussed of course, but the headliner issue was always a matter of Christology, and the seventh was no different. The accusation the iconoclasts were making was that we should not make images of God because idols are prohibited in Scripture. This is a subtle denial of the incarnation of Christ, however. The decision of the council itself puts in much better words than I ever could:
But what about what Christians do with these icons? Kissing them, bowing to them. Isn't that a blasphemous thing to do?
In response, I will let St John of Damascus respond, the largest proponent of icons and the most outspoken member of the seventh council:
I'm not sure what your experience is, but when I was a protestant and I showed up to church, I sat down in my pew and waited until the singing started, and then I tried to worship God while singing a contemporary worship song accompanied by a full band. Now I enter into a quiet sanctuary, and the first thing I do is cross myself, asking God for a blessing. Then I approach the altar at the front of the church and cross myself again. Then I stand before the icons of Christ and the Theotokos, and pay homage to them by kissing them. I am not paying homage to a block of wood, but I rather am honouring their presence. Christ is present with us as we worship, and having an icon to venerate makes that realization all the more real. Worship has become much more physically real for me than it ever was when I was a Protestant.
And I can't get enought of it.
I'm not Orthodox. Because I don't believe in the seventh ecumenical councilI had no idea what to do with that sentence. As an evangelical protestant, I didn't understand a word he just said. I'm not Orthodox. Ok, sure, whatever that means. I don't believe in the seventh ecumenical council. I should say that I vaguely knew what a council was. Everyone has heard of some sort of council... the council of ... something or other. What did he mean the seventh? Was that some sort of checklist of seven things that if you professed all seven, then you were considered Orthodox? Why did he even care to share that with me?
As the semester wore itself on, we got more and more acquainted. When we were given our school placements for the year, he voiced to me his predicament. He had been placed at a private Christian Mennonite high school out of town, which is exactly what he wanted. Well, the "Christian" part anyway. He was having difficulty with teaching in a school alongside people who did not practice infant baptism. After he told me this, I must confess I rolled my mental eyes at him. Come on, I thought, get over the doctrine issue. What a petty thing to have a problem with. Besides, you're not supposed to baptize infants - it's against the Bible.
Fast-forward ten and a half years. Now I can say:
I'm Orthodox. Because I do believe in the seventh ecumenical councilGranted I'm not Orthodox simply because I believe in the council, but it was a nice poetic thing to write, so I did.
But what exactly was the seventh ecumenical council? Why did my colleague have such a problem with it? What the heck is the big deal anyway? Can't we all just get along?
The seventh ecumenical council, held in Nicaea in 787, was about icons. Iconography had been a contentious issue for the last 150 years, and this was the council that officially ended the controversy once and for all and restored icons to their proper place as not just an important part of our faith, but an absolutely essential part of our faith.
"What? Icons... essential? Boy what a legalistic and idolatrous stance to take!" (said while rolling mental eyes at me)
Ah, icons... At one time I hated them. Now I find myself wanting as many of them as I can get. Anyway, enough of me, here's a brief history of the seventh ecumenical council.
In the decades leading up to the year 726, there had been a small group of Christians that decided icons were idolatrous and violated the second commandment, that there be no graven images made. The group, known as iconoclasts were small in number, but in 726, then Emperor Leo III joined the attack on icons. The empire was thoroughly Christian at this point and there were many churches, most of which had icons displayed. There is some uncertainty as to why Leo joined this attack. Some suggest it was borne out of the rise of Muslim invasions - In an effort to figure out why he kept getting defeated, Leo began to think that God was angry with Christianity for including icons in worship, whereas the Muslims abhorred any image whatsoever. Regardless of the reason, he began to spread the idea that icons were abhorrent to God which gave strength to the iconoclast position. With the support of the emperor, the iconoclasts began to get rid of all the icons they could, calling them idolatrous, and smashed quite a few of them. It was during this time that entire churches were being built with no icons whatsoever - something that seems alien when compared with today's Orthodox churches. The attack went on for over 50 years until 780 when icons were restored to their proper place. And the council was convened in 787 to make the restoration of icons official.
The battle for icons was long. Even after the council, there was an iconoclast resurgence lasting nearly 30 years, finally ending in 843. There was even a "council" against icons before the 787, but that council was summarily declared invalid by the seventh council. The day in 843 when Empress Theodora finally put an end to the controversy is commemorated by Orthodox everywhere on the first Sunday of Lent, called the Sunday of Orthodoxy.
But why was it so necessary that icons be restored? Why was the rejection of icons as idols and the accusation that they violated the second commandment such a tragedy?
All previous six ecumenical councils had been convened to discuss the matter of Christ's nature and incarnation. Other things were discussed of course, but the headliner issue was always a matter of Christology, and the seventh was no different. The accusation the iconoclasts were making was that we should not make images of God because idols are prohibited in Scripture. This is a subtle denial of the incarnation of Christ, however. The decision of the council itself puts in much better words than I ever could:
Icons are necessary and essential because they protect the full and proper doctrine of the Incarnation. While God cannot be represented in His eternal nature ("...no man has seen God", John 1:18), He can be depicted simply because He "became human and took flesh." Of Him who took a material body, material images can be made. In so taking a material body, God proved that matter can be redeemed. He deified matter, making it spirit-bearing, and so if flesh can be a medium for the Spirit, so can wood or paint, although in a different fashion.The idea often thrown around in Orthodox circles today is that if Christ were here on the earth today, you could take a picture of Him. He was really and truly human. And so the depiction of Christ is in no way an idolatrous thing. He revealed Himself in the flesh, so we can depict Him in material objects. There are found (albeit rarely) icons of God the Father, and even the Holy Spirit, but these are not in keeping with the Apostolic traditions, and in my opinion (as if that matters at all), they should not be recognized as truly Orthodox.
But what about what Christians do with these icons? Kissing them, bowing to them. Isn't that a blasphemous thing to do?
In response, I will let St John of Damascus respond, the largest proponent of icons and the most outspoken member of the seventh council:
In much of the Church's history, most Christians were illiterate. Icons also served as way to present the Gospel to everyone, and indeed "reading an icon" actually makes sense. Orthodox icons of Christ and the Saints are also called "Windows to Heaven". Surrounded by them, they remind us of the presence of Christ and the great cloud of witnesses that we are praying and worshiping with. Icons of Biblical scenes are filled with symbolism and when thoroughly explained to someone, the truth of that Biblical narrative comes alive. Icons of other scenes throughout history remind us of the miraculous works of Christ, the penitent lives of the Saints, and ultimately, what is truly important for us to keep our focus on during this life.Concerning the charge of idolatry: Icons are not idols but symbols, therefore when an Orthodox venerates an icon, he is not guilty of idolatry. He is not worshipping the symbol, but merely venerating it. Such veneration is not directed toward wood, or paint or stone, but towards the person depicted. Therefore relative honor is shown to material objects, but worship is due to God alone.We do not make obeisance to the nature of wood, but we revere and do obeisance to Him who was crucified on the Cross... When the two beams of the Cross are joined together I adore the figure because of Christ who was crucified on the Cross, but if the beams are separated, I throw them away and burn them. — St. John of Damascus
I'm not sure what your experience is, but when I was a protestant and I showed up to church, I sat down in my pew and waited until the singing started, and then I tried to worship God while singing a contemporary worship song accompanied by a full band. Now I enter into a quiet sanctuary, and the first thing I do is cross myself, asking God for a blessing. Then I approach the altar at the front of the church and cross myself again. Then I stand before the icons of Christ and the Theotokos, and pay homage to them by kissing them. I am not paying homage to a block of wood, but I rather am honouring their presence. Christ is present with us as we worship, and having an icon to venerate makes that realization all the more real. Worship has become much more physically real for me than it ever was when I was a Protestant.
And I can't get enought of it.